Travelling: 17-40mm, 18-55mm, 18-85mm...

[D-Lucas]

Hey all.


I'll be going to France soon, for about 2 months. I'm planning to bring the 450D, and definitely my 50mm, but here's where the problem starts. I most likely will also buy a 100mm macro f/2.8L IS in the near future, and this will come along.


I don't tend to shoot telephoto, so I won't bother about that.


However, I'm in need of a wide angle lens. I don't think I'm willing to bring my 18-55mm; I'm getting a little annoyed at the quality and build. If there isn't a fantastic difference optically, though, I won't spend the money unnecessarily as the trip already is costing a lot, and so will the macro. But at the moment, I'm considering the 15-85mm and the 17-40mm, which have a difference of about $20~, so it's practically negligible.


Thoughts?

[neuroanatomist]

First thought is, "Have a great trip!"


I'd go with the 15-85mm lens, I think. Either lens is a significant improvement over your 18-55mm kit lens, both optically and in build quality. The 15-85mm will likely prove more versatile (fewer lens changes, and 2 mm doesn't sound like much, but the difference between 15mm and 17mm is noticeable). The 17-40mm is a great UWA zoom for FF, but I think less useful on a crop body (40mm is a little short for a walkaround lens; the 17-55mm is a better choice there, but a more expensive one). The only issue with the 15-85mm lens is it's variable and slow-at-the-long-end aperture. But, you'll have a fast 100mm prime, and an even faster 50mm prime, so you should be fine with a slightly slower zoom (the 17-40mm isn't really fast, either).

[D-Lucas]

Thanks - for the good wishes and for the advice. It

[neuroanatomist]

You can compare them on a 50D with Brian's ISO 12233 crops. As you'll see, wide open the EF-S 15-85mm lens beats the 17-40mm L at mid-frame and corners. More in the middle of the range, say 35mm and f/8, they are pretty similar, but the 15-85mm still has a slight edge.


As to the 17-40mm L vs. the cheap 18-55mm IS kit lens, the latter is a pretty good performer as long as you can stop down to f/8. But wide open, the 18-55mm really suffers, and when wide open is already as slow as f/5.6 at the long end, that's a problem for many situations.

I'm more a 28-135mm shooter, and on my 450D, that's about what the 17mm gives me.

Which 17mm? Not the 17-40mm...


To be clear, there a bunch of lenses in the range you're talking about (and the 18-85 mentioned in the post title actually doesn't exist). To summarize:

• EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - relatively new lens, L-level optical quality, mid-level build quality, variable (slow) aperture
• EF 17-40mm f/4L - excellent optical and build quality, mid-level aperture
• EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS -excellentoptical quality,mid-level build quality, fast aperture (not sure if you've mentioned this one)
• EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS - mid-level optical quality,mid-level build quality,variable (slow) aperture
• EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - relatively poor optical quality (but good stopped-down), 'cheap' build quality

Of those, the first two are similarly priced, the 17-55mm is more expensive, the 17-85mm is less expensive, and the 18-55mm is 'cheap' (at least as a kit lens).


From the above list, I think the 17-55mm is the best for most uses, but it's also the most expensive. Stepping down a couple hundred dollars, the 15-85mm is the most versatile of the bunch while still delivering excellent IQ, as long as you've got enough light (using a flash indoors). If you have a crop body and no plans to go FF in the near future, I don't see the benefit of the 17-40mm (with the exception of 7D users who want a weather-sealed wide angle zoom to go with their weather-sealed crop body).

[Kayaker72]

Hi D-Lucas,


I am an EFS 15-85 owner and really like it. I think it would suit you very well on your trip.The ISO 12233 comparison from Neuro's post does agreat job showing how sharp the EFS 15-85 is in comparison to the 17-40 L. It has a very flexible focal length range andthe EFS 15-85'smax aperture from 15-40 mm (f 3.5 at < 24 mm, f4between 24 mm and 35 mm, and f 4.5 from 35-40 mm)is actually very similar to the17-40 f4. As Neuro also pointed out,you mayalso consider the EFS 17-55. One significant advantage these lenses have over the 17-40 L that hasn't yet been mentionedis IS(image stabilization). The EFS 15-85 and EFS 17-55 have IS, while the 17-40 L does not. Specifically, the EFS 15-85 has the newer "4-stop" IS.IS will help you get thosehandheld pictures inside the Sacre Coeur, Notre Dame, or any of the other cathedrals. Of course, it also helps with many other images...as long as your subject isn't moving. An example of IS....the two waterfall picturesbeloware bothhand held with my EFS 15-85at 1/2 or 1/4 of a second shotwith me leaning against a tree or rock (with a polarized filter). I typically get sharp pictures without a flash at 1/10th or 1/20th of a second from a standing-hand held position.


So, from my standpoint the EFS 15-85/EFS 17-55 have a more flexible range, equivalent to slightly better optics and IS while the 17-40 L has a better build quality and is a "L." Of course, the EFS 17-55 also has a full stop better max aperture while I'd consider the max aperture ofthe EFS 15-85 and EF 17-40 L to be a "push." As Neuro also pointed out, if you are going to go to a FF, you may want an EF lens.


In the end,all of these lenses are very good and youshould be able to take great pictures with them. To be honest, in my opinion Canon does not yet have the "perfect" general purpose lens for a crop sensor. But it does have several very good options.


Just my thoughts. Have a great trip.


Brant


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-Acadia/Acadia-Vert-2.JPG[/img]


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-Acadia/Acadia-Vert-4.JPG[/img]

[neuroanatomist]

To be honest, in my opinion Canon does not yet have the "perfect" general purpose lens for a crop sensor.

...or for FF. It's just not really feasible, IMO. If it's got a good zoom range (15-85mm on crop, 24-105mm on FF), it's slow. If it's fast (17-55mm on crop, 24-70mm on FF), it's not long enough at the long end. If Canon ever tries to satisfy both parameters in one lens (e.g. EF-S 15-70mm f/2.8, EF 24-105mm f/2.8), then it will be too big and too heavy. As Scotty said, "Ye canna change the laws of (optical) physics..."


So in the end, these are choices we need to make... One thing to keep in mind about 'fast' lenses is that the fastest zoom that Canon makes is f/2.8, and that's not really all that fast. So, if low-light shots of moving subjects is something you need to do, a prime lens is the best answer. That, combined with a slower but more versatile zoom, makes a great combo, IMO. For the OP here, the 15-85mm + a 50mm f/1.x would fit that bill.

[Daniel Browning]

I second the advice you